hXXp://www(D)smh.com.au/news/national/teachers-furious-at-site-that-rates-them/2007/05/02/1177788228075.html
Basically a bunch of Australian students made a website which is based in US (out of Aussie jurisdiction) and use the website to review the performance of various teachers, principles, and other school authorities in Australia.
One of the main commandments of the pathocracy - Thou shalt not talk about others "behind their back". What better way is there to protect psychopaths? Obviously you cannot talk truthfully about them in front of them, they are dangerous and arrogant, they are manipulative and can verbally assault/attack you without giving you any opportunity to have any coherent and honest and calm discussion about them in a group. So the only possible way to do it is when they're not around, but if this is defined as "not nice" then psychopaths never get a social review, they're always hidden as nobody discusses them and their behavior, nobody networks and shares their experiences/data/thoughts, because it's "not nice", end of story.
The other side of this is that psychopaths themselves create websites to defame and lie about anyone or anything they don't like. So there's always a possibility that a bunch of psychopathic kids with a chip on their shoulder could lie about good teachers whose only fault could be giving them a bad grade. It is not uncommon for kids to make fun of and unfairly criticize their teachers, especially if the teacher does not tolerate nonsense and laziness and does not just "make nice" and give a good grade anyway. In other words, a teacher that does not let the class walk all over him/her can easily be the object of hate by those who wanted to but were unable to take advantage of the teacher. I know this all too well from my own experience in school.
But I think in the end, a website like this is better than no website. It allows both, liars, and non-liars to speak their minds, and if the reader is careful and critical, it's possible to discern to some degree, and look for data that helps discern the reality further. From the quotes/examples that were given in the article, it does not sound like defamation or lies for the sake of attacking someone. It wasn't a bunch of swearing and anger and "fighting fire with fire" type of talk. It did not sound manipulative either. Just things that were probably true.
The article didn't reference the link to the website in question, I'll try to find it and post the link if I do.
Basically a bunch of Australian students made a website which is based in US (out of Aussie jurisdiction) and use the website to review the performance of various teachers, principles, and other school authorities in Australia.
But what if those "atrocious" comments are true? Or is this irrelevant? That website sounds like a great idea. Not so great if you're a psychopathic teacher or principle of course, then the WORST thing in the world would be to have a group of people that have experience interacting with you discussing your behavior, actions, and words without your control and in a public setting. Oh the horror! Everyone could suddenly know what others think about you, and that's totally unacceptable, I mean, how are you supposed to control and manipulate people if they know you're a psychopathic manipulator!
One of the main commandments of the pathocracy - Thou shalt not talk about others "behind their back". What better way is there to protect psychopaths? Obviously you cannot talk truthfully about them in front of them, they are dangerous and arrogant, they are manipulative and can verbally assault/attack you without giving you any opportunity to have any coherent and honest and calm discussion about them in a group. So the only possible way to do it is when they're not around, but if this is defined as "not nice" then psychopaths never get a social review, they're always hidden as nobody discusses them and their behavior, nobody networks and shares their experiences/data/thoughts, because it's "not nice", end of story.
The other side of this is that psychopaths themselves create websites to defame and lie about anyone or anything they don't like. So there's always a possibility that a bunch of psychopathic kids with a chip on their shoulder could lie about good teachers whose only fault could be giving them a bad grade. It is not uncommon for kids to make fun of and unfairly criticize their teachers, especially if the teacher does not tolerate nonsense and laziness and does not just "make nice" and give a good grade anyway. In other words, a teacher that does not let the class walk all over him/her can easily be the object of hate by those who wanted to but were unable to take advantage of the teacher. I know this all too well from my own experience in school.
But I think in the end, a website like this is better than no website. It allows both, liars, and non-liars to speak their minds, and if the reader is careful and critical, it's possible to discern to some degree, and look for data that helps discern the reality further. From the quotes/examples that were given in the article, it does not sound like defamation or lies for the sake of attacking someone. It wasn't a bunch of swearing and anger and "fighting fire with fire" type of talk. It did not sound manipulative either. Just things that were probably true.
The article didn't reference the link to the website in question, I'll try to find it and post the link if I do.
